Belief in God is rational.
Everything has a cause. So unless there is a first cause, then you would have an infinite regress. And then nothing could exist. Therefore there must be a first cause. Therefore God, the first cause, exists. QED. (You could prove the first step a priori that everything has a cause by noting that nothing can come from nothing. This makes it a priori, not just an empirical observation).

Translate

9.11.15

Rambam accidental sacrifices 6:11
He eats two pieces of forbidden fat in one span of forgetting. Then he knows about the first one. Then in the same span of forgetting as the second one he eats a third piece. Since knowledge divides he will be required a sin offering for the first piece and the second will be included even if he does not know about it yet. If instead he brought for the third piece the second will also be included.

The end of that law is this: If he remembered the second piece and brings a sin offering for it then the first and third will be included and when he remembers them he will not be required a sacrifice.

The case is when he remembers the first piece. So what does the Rambam mean at the end when he says when he remembers the first piece after the sin offering? See the entire law and you will see that the third case is just a continuation of the original set up. Rav Shach said the sin offering does not divide. That means to Rabbi Yochanan [who stated this law ] only knowledge divides, not the sin offering. What this means is the case is the exact set up as we started with. Nothing has changed. He ate the two first pieces in one span of forgetting, and then remembered the first. Then he ate the third in the same span as the second. Then he brings a sin offering for the second after he remembered the second. The third is included since it was eaten in the same span of forgetting as the second, and the sin offering does not divide.

Rav Shach wrote is that Rabbi Yochanan holds knowledge alone divides, not atonement. This is an important key. Thus in the case where there are only two pieces and he eats the first and second in one span and then remembers to first and then brings a sin offering for the first he is absolved from the second. That means to Rabbi Yochanan the first knowledge does not divide--only the second and further on. That is to say if we have the same case and he remembers the first and then the second then they are automatically divided.

I thought to explain the end of halacha 11 in ch 6. The case is similar to the beginning of the halacha but with one difference, He ate the first and second piece and then remembered the second piece and then in the same span of forgetfulness of the first piece he ate the third piece. Now he brings a sacrifice for the second piece. The first and third are atoned for because they were both in the same span as the second but not the same span as each other.

My learning partner thought if he had remembered the second piece, and then ate the third that that is not in one העלמה.

I was thinking is that in my way piece 1 and piece 3 are in one העלמה and that the fact that there has not been a second ידיעה that makes it all one העלמה. in this way it is not a trivial case of all being eaten in one העלמה. The sin offering will come after the third piece was eaten and then when he remembers 1 and 3 they will be included. But I highly doubt if my learning partner will budge.

The motivation for my approach is the fact that if in a case where there are only two pieces and he eats 1 and 2 in one העלמה and then remembers 1 and brings a sin offering for 1 alone still 2 is automatically included because there was no second ידיע on 2. But if he had known about 2 before the sin offering he would have to bring another because the second ידיעה does divide.

Next day: I told him my idea. That is I explained 1 and 2 are connected. And then 3 and 1 are connected. Therefore 3 is connected to 2 by means of a bridge through piece 1. he pointed out that that cant be true because then it would work for the beginning of that halacha. That is when 1 and 2 were in one span and then he remembered 1 and then ate 3 in the same span as 2. In that case only 1 and 2 are connected. And when he brings the sin offering only 1 an 2 are taken care of. SO obviously 2 can't bridge between 3 and 1. So 1 can't bridge between 3 and 2. And besides that he noted that the Gemara itself says what he says. גררא אחת אמרינן שתי גררות לא אמרינן. And furthermore it is common sense. If he ate 1 and then remembered it and then ate 2 then piece two is not in the same העלמה. So in my case also. When he remembered 2 that makes 2 and 3 in separate העלמות. So I have to leave this entire essay out of my ideas on Shas book.

=====================================================================

Here is the above writings with a little Hebrew.

רמב''ם שגגות ו:י''א
He eats two כזיתים of forbidden fat חלב in one span of העלמה. Then he knows about the first כזית. Then in the same העלמה as the second כזית, he eats a third כזית. Since ידיעה divides, he will be required a חטאת for the first כזית and the second will be included even if he does not know about it yet. If instead he brought for the third כזית the second will also be included.

The end of that law is this: If he remembered the second כזית and brings a sin offering for it then the first and third will be included, and when he remembers them he will not be required a sacrifice.

"Knowledge" means his wife walked into the kitchen and asked him, "Where is the forbidden fat I left on the table? I was going to use it to grease the car wheels!"

The next day. I would like to explain רב ש''ך's answer for the רמב''ם in more detail and I would like to answer the problem that he raised on the רמב''ם from Chapter 8:8. I want to show how his answer helps us to understand the end of law 11 in chapter 6. רב ש''ך I am pretty sure he meant this but he did not openly say this so I think it is necessary to show what he means.

The first point רב ש''ך makes explicitly is that רבי יוחנן holds knowledge divides not atonement. This is an important key. Thus in the case where there are only two pieces and he eats the first and second in one span and then remembers to first and then brings a sin offering for the first he is absolved from the second. That means to רבי יוחנן the ידיעה ראשונה does not divide, only the second and further on. That is to say if we have the same case and he remembers the first and then the second then they are automatically divided.

I thought to explain the end of פרק ו' הלכה י''א. The case is similar to the beginning of the הלכה but with one difference, He ate the כזית ראשון ושני and then remembered the כזית שני and then in the same העלמה of the כזית ראשון he ate the כזית השלישי. Now he brings a חטאת for the כזית השני. The ראשון and שני are מתכפרים for because they were both in the same העלמה as the שני but not the same העלמה as each other.

I went to my learning partner and tried to explain this. He said if he had remembered the כזית השני and then ate the כזית השלישי that that is not in one העלמה.

In my way כזית הראשון and כזית השלישיare in one העלמה and that the fact that there has not been a ידיעה שנייה that makes it all one העלמה. In this way it is not a trivial case of all all three כזיתים being eaten in one העלמה. The חטאת will come after the כזית השלישי was eaten and then when he remembers כזית הראשון and כזית השלישי they will be included.

The motivation for my approach is the fact that if in a case where there are only שני כזיתים and he eats כזית הראשון and כזית השני in one העלמה and then remembers כזית הראשון and brings a חטאת for כזית הראשון alone still כזית השני is automatically included because there was no second ידיע on כזית השני. But if he had known about כזית השני before the חטאת he would have to bring another because the second ידיעה does divide.

Next day: I told him my idea. That is I explained כזית הראשון and כזית השני are connected. And then כזית השלישי and כזית הראשון are connected. Therefore כזית השלישי is connected to כזית השני by means of a bridge through piece כזית הראשון. He pointed out that that can not be true, because then it would work for the beginning of that הלכה. That is when כזית הראשון and כזית השני were in one span and then he remembered כזית הראשון and then ate כזית השלישי in the same העלמה as כזית השני. In that case only כזית השראון and כזית השני are מחוברים And when he brings the חטאת only כזית הראשון and כזית השני are taken care of. So obviously כזית השני can't bridge between כזית השלישי and כזית הראשון. So כזית הראשון can not bridge between כזית השלישי and כזית השני. And besides that he noted that the גמרא itself says what he says. גררא אחת אמרינן, שתי גררות לא אמרינן. And furthermore it is common sense. If he ate 1 and then remembered it and then ate כזית השני, then כזית השני is not in the same העלמה. So in my case also. When he remembered כזית השני that makes כזית השני and כזית השלישי in separate העלמות.